audio_silence

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the method (finding near-zero regions and checking LSBs) and indicates the result is a strong steganography indicator. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, file format requirements, or whether the tool modifies files.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every word adds value. No redundancy or wasted text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the simplicity of the input schema (two parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the core functionality and methodology. It could briefly mention output format or return type, but overall it is complete enough for typical use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described in the input schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not mention the threshold parameter or its default value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool analyzes silent sections in WAV audio for hidden data using LSB checking. It uses a specific verb 'analyze' and resource 'WAV audio', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like audio_lsb_detect and audio_echo_detect by focusing on silent regions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for detecting steganography in silent audio sections but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like audio_lsb_detect or audio_echo_detect. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.